Talk:Mary Gordon (prison inspector)

Thoughts re: readiness for GA

Cowlibob, I think that the article looks pretty good. Here are some comments about the article about Mary Gordon for consideration:

• The intro and infobox look good.
• Early life
  • How did she have two-step siblings? Which parent died / which remarried (I assume remarried)?
  • I am not understanding "to criticise measures enacted in the previous year to combat the spread of STDs in the military stationed there" - if there were measures to combat the spread of STDs, wouldn't that be a good thing? What was the military doing that was not helpful?
• Career
  • Her career started after she graduated, but a lot of good information is in the Early life section.
  • How does "introducing notebooks" to prisons help? For journaling, education?
  • I have been wrestling with "When the WSPU headquarters were raided" - even though "headquarters appears as a plural, isn't it really "the" specific place, meaning "was" is the appropriate word? I am not sure, just wondering which trumps: use of "the" or "headquarters", stated as a plural.
  • I would recommend that career has three sections: Physician, Prison reformer OR Prison administrator, and Author (she retired from her career in the justice system, but then authored more books, so she wasn't retired from all vocations).
  • Then, perhaps have a "Personal life", with any information about her personal life, or "Death" section.
  • I would put "She retired in 1921.[1]" with the prison administrator info. Or, change it to "After she retired in 1921,"
  • I am confused about the "reservations" about the Chase of the Wild Goose book. Gordon had reservations about her book? Was it because of editing by the publishers - the Woolfs?
• It seems like the "Published works" section is redundant, since all the books are mentioned in the body of the article.
• The "Bibliography" section seems as if it should go below the citations / references. Well, that's just usually how it goes.

It's a very interesting article, great work!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I made these minor edits: mostly punctuation and links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wow! The article looks really nice and it makes such much more sense to me now (I have a brain injury that makes me easily confused when taking in a lot of info.) Looks really good. And, I see I got confused about the books. It makes more sense now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Thanks for your comments. Respect for editing while having a chronic medical issue. I've expanded the article to cover the info I missed out except the notebook bit. I couldn't find a source but I would imagine that notebooks would help in documenting their time and help with the psychological aspect of being in prison. I'll be nominating at GAN shortly. Cowlibob (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Cowlibob My pleasure! I would be happy to do the GA review if you'd like - it would be pretty easy at this point. If you want a fresh set of eyes, I totally get that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy for you to do the review, your comments essentially covered a lot of the similar ground of a GA review so would be a shame not to finish it up. Cowlibob (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. When I get further along on Amelia Piper, I will start the review. I'll at least start the GA review page right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Gordon (prison inspector)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 20:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I will start the review later today or tomorrow morning.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

General comment: Again, great article! I really feel for her enthusiasm, optimism, and need to right wrongs about the penal system.

I read the article again and made a couple of edits. I also found some explanation about the notebooks - regarding keeping a diary and writing letters. See what you think. It is not necessary, but I think helps explain the use for the notebooks. (i.e., whether it stays or not will not in any way affect the GA review.) The sum of my edits are here. I think the English punctuation sometimes varies from American punctuation, so if I made an error, please let me know or fix it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes, the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes, it complies with manual of style guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes, it is properly cited and in a proper layout.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes, all the sources are reliable sources - and the content is properly cited throughout.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes, there is no evidence of original research.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I am not able to see all the sources, but from what I can see, there are no copyright violations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, it covers the main aspects of the topic.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes, the article is neutral.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes, the article if very stable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes, images are properly tagged with copyright status.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, images are relevant to the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

The items I have brought up so far include:

1. Edits I made - I provided a link here to the total changes I made. If I have gone off-track, please make the appropriate changes. -- Update: Thanks for formatting the citations to Bibliography and short citations - and fixing the date in one citation and the "child labour" phrase.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
2. I added optional verbiage that explains the notebooks - and put it into a note. As I said above, if you don't like it, it's no problem - it won't affect the outcome of the GA review if it is removed. -- Update: Excellent job rewording the content! Looks great!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Neutrality - I have a question above about whether you ran across book reviews that were not favorable, or had a different slant than a general positive comment.
4. Images - It would be nice to have a couple of images, but it is not necessary. I threw out some suggestions in the GA criteria table. -- Update: Nice images, thanks!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the books, I think this source provides a balanced review. I personally would remove the "find it interesting" entirely, or explain why... and perhaps add that gets a bit into the "meat" of the message that she is trying to impart through her book (and through her career). That's just a thought, though.

I really like what you have written about Penal Discipline and Chase of the Wild Goose.

Overall, I didn't find anything written about the books that shows that there is undue focus on the positive or an issue with neutrality.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I still need to check sources against content and run copyvio detector, etc. I will do that tomorrow. But so far, the article is looking good. I have not run into a major issue so far.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary review - since the preliminary review isn't part of this page, here is a link to the summary of issues that were noted and addressed before nominating the article for GA.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

As I updated above, I am not finding copyright violations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have passed the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Thanks for passing it. I'm happy to include The Atheneaum review but I can only see snippets via Google Books, if you have access please could you show me what it says. The only other review I found for Penal Discipline was in The New York Times but it's unfortunately behind a paywall. [[1]]. Cowlibob (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Cowlibob, Here's the review from The Atheneaum:

"The aim of this story is to show the destructive influence on mind and character of our prison system, and the difficulties experienced by a convict in regaining his former position. There is much careful study of character in the book. The half-understood motives which govern the action of men before acute feeling brings about self-analysis are well delineated in the character which is the nearest to a villain that the author permits himself. The hero is also well drawn, but the narration of his attempted lapse to crime does not ring true. It may be objected that the heroine can be nothing but an ideal—for ourselves, in those prosaic days, we welcome at least one ideal in a novel. The weakest thing in the book is the conventional happy ending."

Here's an abstract from The New York Times at the link you provided. I am unable to see the full article, too.

"IN a book that is dedicated to all prisoners and captives and to three in particular. Dr. Gordon argues with warmth and vigor against the prison system of Great Britain. She speaks with a measure of authority, inasmuch as she was for years H.M. Inspector of Prisons and Assistant Inspector of State and Certified, inebriate Reformatories."–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)